Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's H-1B Workers Cited In Motion That Successfully Blocked Trump's Travel Ban (geekwire.com)
"President Trump's travel ban is on hold," reports WGN. "A federal judge in Seattle blocked the executive order banning travelers from seven predominately Muslim countries." But Slashdot reader theodp noticed that the judge's temporary restraining order might've been responding to something specific: the motion argued Trump's executive order had been harmful because it impacted major tech companies in the state of Washington, including Microsoft. From the motion:
Washington's technology industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program. Nationwide, Washington ranks ninth in the number of applications for high-tech visas. Microsoft, which is headquartered in Washington, employs nearly 5,000 people through the program. Other Washington companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands of H-1B visa holders. Loss of highly skilled workers puts Washington companies at a competitive disadvantage with global competitors.
It was in response to the motion from Washington that the judge ultimately ruled that "the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of signing and implementation of the Executive Order," citing its harm on the state's public universities -- and on its tax base. And Attorney General Bob Ferguson told GeekWire that he gave some credit for the judge's ruling to the declarations of support filed by Amazon and Expedia which specifically say that "Microsoft's U.S. workforce is heavily dependent on immigrants and guest workers. At least 76 employees at Microsoft are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen and hold U.S. temporary work visas."
It was in response to the motion from Washington that the judge ultimately ruled that "the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of signing and implementation of the Executive Order," citing its harm on the state's public universities -- and on its tax base. And Attorney General Bob Ferguson told GeekWire that he gave some credit for the judge's ruling to the declarations of support filed by Amazon and Expedia which specifically say that "Microsoft's U.S. workforce is heavily dependent on immigrants and guest workers. At least 76 employees at Microsoft are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen and hold U.S. temporary work visas."
At the time of writing, WE THE PEOPLE meant white male landowners.
Today, WE THE PEOPLE means the corporations.
Please, try to keep up.
I think the H-1B program should be expanded to other occupations. If medical insurance companies could import masses of low-paid foreign doctors and dentists, just think of how much that could cut the costs of insurance premiums!?!
Also, these judges seem and lawyers seem to be scarce and overpaid . . . let's replace them with cheap foreign imports!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Not one word about translators and guides for the US army in Iraq who have served faithfully and got a visa after intense vetting as a reward. Not one word about the reliability of the vetting procedures already in place, the probability of inadvertently admitting terrorists on visa already issued or about substituting security theatre for security. Not one word about the justification (or lack thereof) of a measure that hits people who have lived here for 10+ years without problems and can't travel abroad because they'll be stopped at the border.
No. The only thing that counted was: Washington state filed a complaint that companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Starbucks (not people !) have suffered immediate and irreparable (financial) loss. That was decisive.
Ugh. I'm getting a drink.
Hey! Corporations are people too! Anyway, the Muslim ban is just another of the burdensome regulations that are strangling small businesses. Aren't we supposed to be against regulations?
Also, the judge implies that aliens in foreign countries have Constitutional rights, which is complete lunacy.
Where are you reading that? The judge specifically motivates the stay by saying that the states have sufficiently demonstrated that they are suffering immediate injury from the ban. That is what is in question, the "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States" part. Washington is arguing that the ban itself is detrimental, and the judge is ruling that the White House has not made sufficient justification that the harm avoided by the ban outweighs that which it itself causes.
This is why it was lawful when President Obama banned all Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011.
There was no refugee ban under Obama, I don't know where you all are getting this from. There was a period in 2011 when vetting was increased for refugees from Iraq, and... that's it. At no point was there a ban, at no point were Iraqi refugees prohibited from entering the country, there was never a time when Iraqi refugees were not entering the country.
That may be how the law works out in practice, but it's probably not the intent. I suspect that the law, like in most other countries, chiefly concerns itself with the rights of citizens and to a lesser degree with residents of the country. If a travel ban causes harm to aliens, law says "meh". However if it causes harm to citizens (and by extension: to corporations), then apparently the law states that the pros and cons have to be weighed against each other. Maybe there are laws that govern how visa and green card holders are to be treated, but those are different laws and that would be a different case.
I agree with the sentiment, though. Even if these people aren't US citizens, you'd think that the government would treat valid visas and green cards as a sort of contract, and that they would have an obligation at least to continue to honour it once issued. Unless there are immediate and substantial reasons not to. To be honest, I don't see any of the stated reasons for the ban either as valid or of sufficient consequence to warrant immediate action.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Okay, thanks for answering my question anyway. Apparently that article is indeed where that rumor started (link), though the only thing that actually happened was that they stopped taking new applications for a while while they redid the existing applications. There were no bans, and new refugees continued come in during this time.
So let me get this straight: a judge rules that since Microsoft in WA state relies on H-1B Visa slave labor—and Microsoft constitutes a large chunk of the WA state tax base—therefore the federal H-1B slave labor program cannot be suspended in the U.S. in any way because that would adversely impact some states' economies.
Didn't we already fight one civil war over this sort of issue? And this ruling was issued during Black History Month?
Consider my mind officially boggled by the blatant irony of this decision.
P.S. Lest you imagine I am just trolling, this was ironically the same appeals judge who proclaimed that “Black Lives Matter” in a hearing involving Seattle police reform.
...... Just sayin'. This judge has a tendency to preach from the bench.
Ref: http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Ahh yes, when Trump issues an executive order its "getting things done and cutting through the baloney", when Obama did it "it was a step on the road to tyranny and dictatorship" go it
"I support the ban - our safety comes ahead of their convenience"
But does it increase your safety. What about other countries, what about those that get through anyway, what about 9/11 terrorists, 15 where from Saudi Arabia, two where from the United Arab Emirates, and one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.
It's an artificial emergency so that a weak President can appear to be strong.
"I support the ban - our safety comes ahead of their convenience"
But does it increase your safety. What about other countries, what about those that get through anyway, what about 9/11 terrorists, 15 where from Saudi Arabia, two where from the United Arab Emirates, and one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.
Not to mention that the number of terror-related deaths on American soil since 1975 caused by people from the seven countries in Trump's travel-ban is ... exactly zero.
People may feel safer with Trump's ban in force, but that doesn't mean they actually are. Trump played to his base with this order. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE -- all countries with which Trump has business dealings -- are still off the hook.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.